<< Putting Criminals Back on Your Payroll | Main | Collective Tantrum Update >>


No, No, No, No

| 2 Comments
The US Supreme Court denied a stay of execution to Ohio triple murderer Reginald Brooks.  Four times.  Orders are here, here, here, and here.  No dissents are noted.

Kantele Franko reports for AP that the execution proceeded. There is no question of identity of the perpetrator in this case.  Brooks "fatally shot his three sons while they slept in 1982, shortly after his wife filed for divorce."

Prosecutors acknowledged Brooks was mentally ill but disputed the notions that it caused the murders or made him incompetent. They said he planned merciless killings, bought a revolver two weeks in advance, confirmed he'd be home alone with the boys, targeted them when they wouldn't resist and fled on a bus with a suitcase containing a birth certificate and personal items that could help him start a new life.
The Court also denied a stay to Florida triple murderer Oba Chandler.  Matthew Hendley has this post at the Broward-Palm Beach New Times.  The post incorrectly says the stay was denied by Justice Thomas.  Standard procedure is for stay applications to be submitted to the Justice assigned to the circuit, who then regularly refers the application to the full Court for decision, except in emergencies.  That is what happened in this case.

Update:  Alan Johnson reports in the Columbus Dispatch, "Those witnessing the execution behind glass about 10 feet away gasped but said nothing as Brooks first glared at and 'flipped off' his ex-wife, the mother of the three children he murdered nearly 30 years ago after she filed for divorce."
Thanks to middleamerican for the tip.

Wow.  A man murders his three children, and his last act is an obscene gesture at their mother.  Why do I have this sense of deja vu?

2 Comments

Looks like he debunked his BS incompetent to be executed claim . . . .

lame incompetent claim: too right
29 years to execute: too long
mental illness as a defense: too wrong

1- Is it logically possible for a man to be competent to intentionally target a victim, fire and kill with a weapon that he prepared correctly, and to do this successfully to two more victims, whilst being incompetent to be held fully responsible for the killings?

2-- He didn't know what a discharged handgun does to a body? After witnessing the wounds and cries of the victims, he didn't understand that they needed immediate medical care?

3--- Or, did he intend to kill them?

If so, is "competency" a relevant issue?

--Adamakis

Leave a comment